CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortland Glass Co. v. Angello

The petitioner sought to prohibit the Commissioner of Labor from allowing Iron Workers Local Union 417 to intervene in an administrative hearing. This hearing was initiated by the Department of Labor to investigate allegations that the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages on public work projects, specifically by paying glaziers' rates instead of ironworkers' rates for preglazed window installation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding, affirming the Commissioner's authority to permit permissive intervention in adjudicatory proceedings. On appeal, the court rejected the union's argument that the appeal was not ripe for review and ultimately affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The decision clarified that administrative intervention rules are broader than judicial standing requirements and found no clear legal bar violated by the Hearing Officer's grant of intervention.

Administrative LawInterventionProhibition (Writ)CPLR Article 78Labor LawPrevailing WagePublic Work ProjectsAgency DiscretionRipeness DoctrineStanding to Sue
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berry v. St. Peter's Hospital

Cornelius M. Berry suffered severe brain damage during a medical procedure at St. Peter’s Hospital in 1983, leading to a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by his wife, as conservator. Health insurers, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Lucent Technologies, Inc., who paid significant medical expenses, sought to intervene in the suit after a confidential settlement was reached for non-medical damages. Supreme Court granted their motion for permissive intervention, giving them veto power over future settlements. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the permissive intervention an abuse of discretion due to potential prejudice to the plaintiff, undue delay, and a conflict of interest with the insureds, especially considering the "made whole" doctrine. The court held that insurers' subrogation rights defer to their primary obligations to their insureds and denied the motions for permissive intervention.

Medical malpracticeInterventionSubrogation rightsHealth insurance disputesAppellate DivisionAbuse of discretionInsurer-insured relationship"Made whole" doctrineCPLR 1013CPLR 1012
References
13
Case No. MDL-1446, CIV. A. H-01-3624
Regular Panel Decision

Newby v. Enron Corp.

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy ("the Board") sought to intervene in a pending class action lawsuit (Newby v. Enron Corp.) to gain access to an ESL website and depositions. The Board's purpose was to investigate alleged audit failures related to Enron's collapse to determine if any Texas accountants violated public accountancy laws. Arthur Andersen LLP objected, arguing that the Board's sole aim was discovery, which is not a proper ground for intervention, and that it circumvented established discovery procedures while potentially prejudicing non-party deponents. Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. took no position but requested adherence to confidentiality orders. The District Court, acknowledging a split in circuit court interpretations regarding standing for permissive intervention, granted the Board's motion. The Court reasoned that the Board met the requirements for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2), shared common questions of law and fact with the main action, and intervention would serve judicial economy without unduly delaying the litigation, provided the Board complied with all confidentiality orders.

Intervention MotionPermissive InterventionDiscovery AccessConfidentiality OrderJudicial EconomyEnron ScandalPublic Accountancy ActRegulatory InvestigationClass Action LitigationFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2)
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Endicott Johnson Corp.

The Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The stay is continued until the appellant has an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, if so advised.

Appellate ProcedurePermission to AppealCourt of AppealsStay of ProceedingsJudicial Panel
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1984

Kacprowski v. Sorro

This case involves a special proceeding under Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (5) where the plaintiffs-petitioners sought permission to compromise a personal injury action. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted their motion for leave to renew and reargue their application, subsequently granting the application to compromise the action. The Utilities Mutual Insurance Company and the Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed this decision, arguing the $22,500 settlement was inadequate and the permission to settle was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the resettled order, finding that the liability and damage questions in the underlying action, which involved a dog attack aggravating previous injuries and precipitating surgery, were problematical, thus concluding that the settlement grant was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjurySettlementCompromiseDog AttackAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDamagesLiabilityAggravated Injury
References
0
Case No. 04-15-00061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Ravi Botla, M.D. v. Salvador Del Toro, Jr.

This document is a petition for permission to appeal an order from the 131st District Court of Bexar County, Texas. Appellant Ravi Botla, M.D., seeks to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment, which was based on the statute of limitations. The trial court denied Dr. Botla's motion but granted him permission for an interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(d) and (f). The petition outlines controlling questions of law regarding the sufficiency of a medical authorization to toll the statute of limitations and whether procedural rules can extend the absolute limitations period in a health care liability claim when the deadline falls on a weekend.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsPermissive AppealInterlocutory AppealSummary JudgmentHealth Care Liability ClaimMedical AuthorizationTolling ProvisionCivil ProcedureAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highlands Insurance Co. v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

Salvador E. Sambrano initiated a worker's compensation suit against Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company and Highlands Underwriters Insurance Company. Lumbermen's was granted a summary judgment, claiming no worker's compensation insurance was in effect. Highlands Insurance Company subsequently filed a plea of intervention after the judgment was signed and appealed the summary judgment. On motion for rehearing, the Court determined that Highlands' post-judgment intervention was not permissible as a matter of law, as the trial court had not set aside its original judgment. Consequently, Highlands never became a party to the suit and lacked standing to appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

InterventionPost-judgmentSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationJurisdictionAppeal DismissalTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureEquitable RightRule 329bRule 60
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Dallas

This case concerns the constitutionality of various city ordinances enacted and enforced in Dallas, allegedly to remove homeless persons from public view. The plaintiffs, a class of homeless persons, sued the City of Dallas, the Dallas Police Department, and members of the Dallas City Council, challenging ordinances such as one prohibiting sleeping in public and the proposed eviction of a homeless encampment. Business and homeowners associations (Movants) sought to intervene, citing adverse economic impact and public safety risks. The Court denied intervention as of right, finding that the Movants' economic interest was too broad and not a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest under Rule 24(a). Permissive intervention was also denied, as their interests were coextensive with the defendants' and their participation would increase costs and delay. However, Movants were granted leave to appear as amici for the purpose of filing briefs related to the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.

Intervention of RightPermissive InterventionHomelessnessCity OrdinancesConstitutional LawRule 24, Fed.R.Civ.P.Economic InterestPublic SafetyAmici CuriaeInjunctive Relief
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iroquois Beverage Corp. v. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America

The case involves an application by Alger A. Williams, J. George E. Constantine, and other employees (referred to as intervenors) to join an existing arbitration proceeding. This arbitration is between Iroquois Beverage Corporation (the employer) and an unnamed union. The union initiated the arbitration to improve the seniority rights of 32 employees, which would negatively impact the intervenors. Both the employer and the union opposed the intervenors' application. The court examined legal precedents regarding individual employee rights in collective bargaining agreements, noting a trend towards recognizing an employee's right to independent representation, especially when the union's interests may conflict with those of certain members. The judge concluded that allowing the intervention would serve justice, particularly given the union's admitted prior collusion with the company regarding seniority in 1949. The court also dismissed the union's objection concerning the lack of a complete list of proposed intervenors as immaterial.

Employee RightsCollective BargainingArbitration InterventionSeniority RightsUnion RepresentationThird-Party BeneficiaryLabor LawJudicial Review of ArbitrationCollusionDue Process
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicometti v. State

Claimant Nazareno Nicometti was injured in a truck accident at a State-owned construction site, allegedly due to an unsecured jack, causing a fractured eye socket. The claimants sought permission to serve a late notice of claim against the State, alleging violations of Labor Law §§200 and 241. The Court of Claims granted this motion, but the Appellate Division reversed the order, finding the 33-month delay unexcused and prejudicial to the State, which lost the opportunity to investigate and inspect the truck. The court also noted the dubious merit of the claim and the availability of workers' compensation benefits.

Truck AccidentConstruction SiteLabor Law ViolationLate Notice of ClaimCourt of Claims Act § 10 (6)Appellate ReviewUndue DelayPrejudice to DefendantWorkers' CompensationEye Injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,259 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational